[Grammar] Into Coverage

[evert]

In this sentence from a website:

( abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announces-insured-health-plans-year/story?id=20888098 )
"Facing growing opposition from his own party, President Obama today proposed a fix to a key component of his signature health care law, allowing Americans who are losing their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to keep their plans for up to a year before being forced into coverage that meets the new standards."

Assuming that "coverage" (US) = "cover" (UK). Is "being forced into coverage" grammatically wrong, because the sentence makes it sound like it is okay to write "He is in insurance coverage" to mean "He has insurance coverage". Would "being forced into getting coverage" be better?

 

[Raymott]

In this sentence from a website:

( abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announces-insured-health-plans-year/story?id=20888098 )
"Facing growing opposition from his own party, President Obama today proposed a fix to a key component of his signature health care law, allowing Americans who are losing their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to keep their plans for up to a year before being forced into coverage that meets the new standards."

Assuming that "coverage" (US) = "cover" (UK). Is "being forced into coverage" grammatically wrong, because the sentence makes it sound like it is okay to write "He is in insurance coverage" to mean "He has insurance coverage". Would "being forced into getting coverage" be better?

Your understanding is correct. You could add "getting", but it doesn't make it any better. A native speaker would have no trouble with this and it's common. Eg. "He was forced into marriage" = "He was forced to get married." = "He was forced into getting married."
"He was forced into the army" = "He was forced to join the army."

Where did you get idea that 'coverage' is AmE and 'cover' is BrE?

 

[probus]

Your understanding is correct. You could add "getting", but it doesn't make it any better.

Where did you get idea that 'coverage' is AmE and 'cover' is BrE?

The distinction smells right to me.

 

[Raymott]

The distinction smells right to me.

It might be right too. I'm still interested in knowing how the OP worked that out, given that he's presenting it as an assumption.
"Cover' is routinely used in AusE too.

 

[evert]

"To be forced into marriage" sounds good to me, because marriage is a state. "to be forced into coverage (cover)" is weird, because coverage (cover) is not a state. I could accept "He is in a marriage", but not "He is in (insurance) coverage/cover". Therefore, there must be something wrong with "to be forced into coverage".

 

[5jj]

I could accept "He is in a marriage", but not "He is in (insurance) coverage/cover". Therefore, there must be something wrong with "to be forced into coverage".

'He is in a marriage' is not natural, though 'he is in an unhappy marriage' could be. He is in (insurance) coverage/cover' (= he has insurance coverage/cover) is not natural.

 

[Raymott]

"To be forced into marriage" sounds good to me, because marriage is a state. "to be forced into coverage (cover)" is weird, because coverage (cover) is not a state. I could accept "He is in a marriage", but not "He is in (insurance) coverage/cover". Therefore, there must be something wrong with "to be forced into coverage".

That's not logical. You can't prove that "to be forced into coverage" must be wrong just because you can't accept "He is in coverage."
He is in the coverage scheme. We don't say, "He is in coverage", but that just means that we don't use that phrase, not that it's untrue.

 

[MikeNewYork]

In this sentence from a website:

( abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announces-insured-health-plans-year/story?id=20888098 )
"Facing growing opposition from his own party, President Obama today proposed a fix to a key component of his signature health care law, allowing Americans who are losing their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to keep their plans for up to a year before being forced into coverage that meets the new standards."

Assuming that "coverage" (US) = "cover" (UK). Is "being forced into coverage" grammatically wrong, because the sentence makes it sound like it is okay to write "He is in insurance coverage" to mean "He has insurance coverage". Would "being forced into getting coverage" be better?

In this use, forced into coverage" is fine in AmE. In this context the subject of the discussion is people who already have (insurance) coverage being forced into a different type of (insurance) coverage by a new law. Because of this discussion, "coverage" has become synonymous with "insurance coverage". We hear "40 million Americans have no coverage", "people are at risk for losing their coverage", "people with pre-existing illnesses can't get coverage", etc.

 

[5jj]

Thread closed. Cloe of banned user.